If you have "no place to go," come here!

Murder is still murder, and if it offends your religious sensibilities to call it wrong, tough

Sarah's picture


Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

What the hell, over? Second-degreee murder?

She had filed for divorce. He beheaded her. In Buffalo, New York. The USA. Not Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, or even Darfur. Right here on American soil. She had gone to court and gotten a protective order against him. They don't hand those out because you make goo-goo eyes at the judge and claim you're scared.

Look, I don't give a thin damn how you feel about sharia or what your idea of proper courtesy to superstition and custom might be. This is still a murder.

Why was he not charged with first-degree murder?

The worst that I've seen, yeah," said Andrew Benz, Orchard Park Police Chief.

Orchard Park Police chief Andrew Benz is talking about the crime scene where Assiya Zubair's body was found.

Police tell News 4 the only suspect in this case is the victim's husband, who walked into police headquarters in Orchard Park Thursday evening to report his wife was dead.

It's being called a brutal murder.

"She was decapitated,yes," said Benz.

Zubair was found in the hallway. The mission of Bridges TV is to foster understanding between cultures and diverse populations. According to police, the couple had trouble getting along.

Benz said, "There has been some history. I believe Mrs. Hassan, the victim, had recently filed for divorce and had served the papers on Mr. Hassan."

Police say Zubair and her husband were parents to four children. The marital issues came to light recently with police going to the couple's Big Tree Road in Orchard Park last Friday. ApparentlyZubair felt she was in danger.

"We had been down to their house on Friday, the 6th to serve an order of protection," said Benz.

Domestic violence my eye. Murder. I don't give a damn if he did found a pro-Muslim TV station. Came right down to it, he murdered the mother of his children. No excuse suffices.
Oh, and Mandos? yours are no exception. "Honor killing" is ILLEGAL in the USA. We're not a community open to cultural respect to the extent we let MURDER go -- or are we?

No votes yet


zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

No, second-degree murder is the appropriate charge (I'm a NY lawyer). Used to be that murder in the first degree was only for killing police officers. It's been slightly expanded, but I don't see a subsection that would cover this particular crime (even the torture part, since beheading is a relatively quick death, and the torture section is meant to cover crimes where the victim was tortured and in extreme pain over a long period of time).

So, second-degree murder is still murder. New York's laws are just a little on the funky side wrt the classifications. It's not that this is really a lesser crime, vis-a-vis a male victim, or what have you. It's actually the highest charge applicable in this case.

It's not a capital crime, though, since the Court of Appeals overturned the capital murder statute.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

did you read chezmadame's comment in that thread? In part:

I think its common for police to initially charge with a lesser crime (for which they have strong evidence) while they build a case for more serious charges.

In NYS, the imposition of the death penalty is limited to those convicted of first degree murder. However, as it is currently written, New York's death penalty statue has been ruled unconstitutional.

In reading the grounds for a charge of first degree murder, which she includes, it certainly sounds like this murder fits the bill.

Four children. What a freaking pig he is.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Oh, and Mandos? yours are no exception. "Honor killing" is ILLEGAL in the USA. We're not a community open to cultural respect to the extent we let MURDER go -- or are we?

This is just a slander. I never said anything in favour of "honor killing".

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on're abusing this tragic occurrence to grind another political axe. That's the only way you could twist my words to suggest that I somehow excuse or approve of that poor woman's death. How shameful.

If I were the censorious type, I'd ask the powers that be for redress on this matter. But I'll just let this kind of verbal duplicity stand.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

In your own words, Mandos:

I simply *must* comment on this, though.
By Mandos on Mon, 02/16/2009 - 11:57pm

Alas, poor Violet.

What I want to talk about is the reaction to this thing in the blogosphere, which basically boils down to “so what?” Women get killed by their partners all the time, goes the argument, so this is no big deal. Besides, Muslim men might get offended.

Horseshit. First of all, the fact that women are getting killed all the time is surely not a reason to remain silent on the matter. Secondly, I don’t give a good goddamn if Muslim men are offended. But more to the point, an honor killing carried out according to sharia law — which is what this certainly looks like — is similar to but not identical with the usual spouse-murder in the United States. Honor killings are a relatively new form of murderous misogyny in this country, and as such they ought to be of keen interest. And they would be, if we lived in a society where women’s lives were valued.

OR you don't want to feed the meme that Muslims are especially violent and dangerous and should all be put under very close watch for polluting our feminist culture or something, which has, from time to time, been a popular idea among some of Violet's commentariat.

Oooooh, sharia. Scary Arabic word!

By Mandos on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:44am a system of laws developed over a very long time, only *some* of which concerns gender, and the rest everything from tax law and banking to political order. At the moment it is a propaganda word. It is not that misogyny is not a problem, it is that sharia is used as a propaganda word to make Muslims sound like alien invaders, is what.

By Mandos on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:52am

is a complicated case. The Taliban who sometimes conquer areas in the north sometimes implement their version of sharia law (there are several), which includes the very offensive restrictions on girls and women, but is not the only thing that they implement.

Now, I don't happen to agree with some of the other things they implement. But, the West has a longstanding history of objectifying the Muslim world in a certain way, and this is one of them. In the context of the news story, it is indeed that men find all kinds of justifications to visit violence on women in the USA. Violet would like to make this about Muslims, and engage in that kind of objectification.

Pakistan again
By Mandos on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 1:06am

There's an excellent Pakistani movie from 07 that touches on this from a Pakistani, Pakistani-British, and American perspective, Khuda ké liyé ("In the name of God"). It's in Urdu and English with English subtitles on the Urdu. Though it has no songs, it suffers from some of the standard tropes of subcontinental drama, but I do recommend it. It was directed by a liberal Pakistani film director who knows the conflicts in Pakistani society over women and over music and over Western influence, while not having any illusions about the good intentions of the West.

"fee-fees of Muslim men"
By Mandos on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 4:17pm

Now Violet says on that thread:

As for the “embattled minority” bullshit, nice of you to be more concerned about the fee-fees of Muslim men than about the pandemic of violence against the female half of the human race.

Right, so this is all about the "fee-fees" of Muslim men. Talk about cheques you can't cash.

This is kind of what I mean.

I'm grinding a political axe, here? Nah. Following that thread down, though, it sure looks like you are -- you sound so afraid that the religio-cultural aspect of the act against the woman is more important than the murder, it really leaves me wondering how you would define misogyny.

Murder's at the actual top of my list, there. Followed by rape. The woman in this case had a protective order from the court (much good it did her, and that seems to be a trend, I'm sorry to say) against this man, from whom she intended to dissolve her marriage.

Which is, I remind you, her right in the USA. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Woman files for divorce, husband kills her. Happens at least weekly here in the good old USA and probably oftener than that, damn it, because in spite of the laws on the books we're not taking care of each other the way a First-World nation should -- that is to say, without prejudice regarding gender, age, or financial status.

Last but not least, this is Corrente, and I'm a Senior Fellow here. If you want to go to Admin Lambert about me go ahead. If I get banned, I get banned.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

My words say nothing about "proper courtesy to superstition and custom". That is the slander. My words say nothing about any "excuse suffic[ing]". My words say nothing about "cultural respect" letting "MURDER go". You can't be that stupid, it's all very deliberate slander.

And no, even if you weren't a Fellow, I wouldn't report you. That's not how I roll.

What my words do say, taken in full context, instead of out of context as you have:

Why accept their framing of it anyway?

Common sense, we know that violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon taking various surface forms, but ubiquitous at varying degrees the world over. Economic and educational development seems to have some causative effect in reducing it, we know this too. So why make it specifically about Islam and Muslims?

Unless you want to identify the Enemy. Otherwise, it's not at all clear that sharia this and sharia that is productive except to buy into the conflict that the Taliban itself want to set up.

That way leads to war. Violet's way leads to war. It has. It will.

It is possible that concern for one kind of oppression can lead to war and other kinds of oppression, applied problematically in certain contexts. That is what I was saying: it was about war, and the prospect of war, and the abuse of suffering for to promote war, and Violet's apparently increasing tendency to be a minor unwitting tool in promulgating such doctrines.

"Fee-fees." As if!

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

By the way, Mandos...the word you're looking for is libel not slander.

And truth is a defense.
As is fair comment.

That is not culture. That is not custom. That is criminal.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Thank you for the correction.

It was her choice to address me in the body text and make it about me. If she wanted to post about the killing of a woman in the USA, she could have. I'm hijacking nothing.

The truth about what I actually said, in the context and with the intent I said it, is a defense indeed.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

has issued an open letter concerning the murder of Aasiya Hassan.

NOW's national office has yet to break its silence on the killing. There is, however, commentary on Rihanna's recent assault.

NOW-NYS has issued a statement which makes some excellent points and questions the media blackout of the story.

That is not culture. That is not custom. That is criminal.

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

Aasiya Hassan's murder constitutes a hate crime under the New York Statute.

A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified
offense and either:
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in
whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding
the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious
practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless
of whether the belief or perception is correct.

Submitted by hipparchia on

cuz muslim!... cuz automatically sharia!... cuz no american man would ever even think of decapitating his wife.

it might after all turn out to be an 'honor killing' but until that's been established beyond doubt, it's this kind of wild speculation that leads to vigilantism and adds to the xenophobia that we've already got way too much of. in which case, the low-level media coverage is probably the most responsible course.

and much as love violet when she rips godbags of all stripes, she should have waited until it's known for sure before going off on honor killings and muslims here. not sure why you're beating up on mandos for pointing out that some people are yelling fire in a crowded theater.

oh, and he's right about sharia too.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The reason why is that despite everything, despite opposition to Bush and decrying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some people are still---and for varying reasons---deeply invested in the survivability of the Western Will in Muslim societies and lands. And that some people view anything bad that happens that's vaguely Muslimy, even when it is fairly conventional in the West, as a lever wherewith to assert that Will---though they sometimes do it subconsciously in the manner of American liberals, with good intentions.

Anger accrues towards me from the fact that I am pointing out that the levers they perceive do not exist, and by implication they cannot assert that Will, as good and wholesome as it may be.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

They're also confused about the relationship of the "honor killing" concept to sharia. Even in the most conservative Muslim jurisdictions, enforcement of sharia criminal law even in adultery cases is a judicial matter. Horrible as it is needless to say that it is, the honor killing concept stems from notions of personal and family status.

This is the difference, in Afghanistan-minus-Kabul, between the Taliban and, well, not-the-Taliban. Failure to understand this exacerbates the already inevitable failure in Afghanistan. To them, it may be a distinction without a difference, as someone ends up brutally dead in either case. But if you plan to exert even a smidgen of that Will, knowing this and knowing it well is crucial.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...automatically carries with them the matter of Muslim immigrant and minority status in the USA, and the images in American collective consciousness of foreignness, and the relationship of the majority to the internal minority and to the countries from which they hail.

Countries in which the USA is deeply entangled.

If this were simply a matter of the conventional act of murdering women in the USA, then there is no need to mention "sharia" or "honour killing".

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I, for one, would never have thought of the conventional/nuke distinction in this situation. I find it very interesting that you did, though.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

is pretty conventional the world over. Or do you read the news? Or look at any of hipparchia's links?

On the other hand, nukes are what some people speculate Hypothetical Iran might hypothetically point at Israel if we were to entertain hypotheticals, and over which we might hypothetically have a war.

Now *that* is what I mean by tasteless humour.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

conventional the world over,' why aren't we changing the conventions?

The Imam claims the honor killing is forbidden in Islam.

Yet killing a woman for seeking divorce is a cultural convention, apparently:

"The fierce and gruesome nature of this murder signals it's an honor killing," said Dr. Phyllis Chesler, an author and professor of psychology at the Richmond College of the City University of New York. "What she did was worthy of capital punishment in his eyes."
Following multiple episodes of domestic violence, Aasiya Hassan filed for divorce on Feb. 6 and obtained an order of protection that barred her husband from their home, according to attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.
Chesler, who wrote "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" for Middle East Quarterly, said some Muslim men consider divorce a dishonor on their family.
"This is not permitted in their culture," said Chesler, whose study analyzed more than 50 reports of honor killings in North America and Europe. "This is, from a cultural point of view, an honor killing."
Chesler said honor killings typically are Muslim-on-Muslim crimes and largely involve teenage daughters, young women and, to a lesser extent, wives.
But Chesler said the "extremely gruesome nature" of the crime closely matches the characteristics of an honor killing.
"Leaving the body parts displayed the way he did, like a terrorist would do, that's very peculiar, it's very public," Chesler said. "He wanted to show that even though his business venture may have been failing, that he was in control of his wife."

Apparently there's something to the notion that this is a custom among patriarchical cultures -- maybe it's part of something allied more to central Asia than to Islam?
Here's a case from Germany in which a brother was convicted of murdering his sister.

Morsal, who had won a civic prize for setting up a peer-counselling project at her school, had complained several times to youth-aid counsellors about her brother and parents. The brother killed Morsal after seeing her walking with boys and being told by his own friends that Morsal would become a prostitute.
Just before the trial ended, the defendant, who had several previous convictions for assault, suddenly burst into tears and sobbed that he had never meant to kill Morsal.
"She was my own sister," he shouted.
German campaigners against honor killings demonstrated outside the courtroom. Heidemarie Grobe of the group Terres des Femmes insisted that Morsal's death fitted the honor-killing pattern.
"It's fixed in the roles inside the families," she said. "The brother usually claims the monopoly of force over the sister."
Terre des Femmes estimates 50 women have been killed in the past decade in Germany for reasons of supposed honor.

If UPI can be believed, sometimes it's boys who are slain; and sometimes, whole families, at least in India. In Punjab it appears both members of a couple can be slain if one set of in-laws disapproves the marriage and this is called an honor killing. Apparently this is also common in Jordan, where a divorced woman was killed by her brother. That the practice isn't new can be seen in the 1999 slaying of a Cleveland State student -- in whose death two different US judges found no cause to try suspects.
In Syria and Jordan religion doesn't seem to separate Christians and Muslims in their behavior toward women.
And it isn't just New York where these killings go on. Here in Texas two teen-age girls were murdered by their father because he disapproved of their behavior.
Finally, I'm pretty sure if this anti-woman attitude becomes the norm in the US in my lifetime, I'll be out with a pitchfork and a flamethrower to overturn the convention.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Do you not see the shallowness of Chesler's psychoanalysis? "Closely matches the characteristics." "Like a terrorist would do." (Muslim!) That's clearly abusing the tragedy for propaganda.

And believe it or not, lots white Americans believe some variant of what's in the article, to the point indeed that many white women are killed for seeking divorces in the USA. Here's a long Google Answer thread on the matter.

The point is, some people want to make use of her murder for propaganda. People with agendas like that VDARE site you linked to. (Lots of anti-immigration fun!)

splashy9's picture
Submitted by splashy9 on

It shows how much abuse women get here in the US, and underscores how little freedom women still have. If you fear for your life, you are enslaved by your spouse.

The thing is, no heterosexual woman really knows if her spouse/SO will not flip out, so there is often at least a small undercurrent of anxiety whenever dealing with him.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

in a still-public accessible forum regarding the murdered teenagers. The latest news report is from June, in the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. The guy apparently fell off the planet, and there's no further word what happened to / with his son and wife.

On the topic of honor killings more generally, it seems we've all been fed the idea that it's an Islamic custom, but the articles I read through last night indicate that's not the case -- it happens among Sikhs and Christians and apparently can be motivated as much by the perception of caste / financial standing as honor as it can by by the perception of sexual misbehavior as an insult to family honor. Yeah, I know. It's not religion, it's control. Or, it's male ego.

And vdare's point of view, while expressed in harsh and hateful ways, has some inconvenient truth to it -- assimilation used to anticipate abandonment of some cultural conventions (Santeria comes to mind; in terms of other religious conventions, for example, I don't know how widespread voodoo practices are in the Continental US -- it seems to be a Caribbean / bayou cultural convention).

But it seems to me that you're determined to make this about WHITE, for some reason.
Ordinarily I'd tell you to sod off, but I'm trying to figure out what you're on about, because I really cannot tell for sure what you're trying to claim is more important -- the nature of the relationship or the fact of the murder, or how the suspect's religious / ethnic background appears to have prejudiced the media coverage of the killing, or what, exactly, you want me to acknowledge or admit or whatever it is you're after -- I remain outraged that a woman was beheaded for seeking to dissolve a marriage in which she was subject to violence. That would not be different if she were Chinese or Indian or Vietnamese or Arabic (apparently she wasn't Arabic although she was Islamic; I understand the couple are natives of Pakistan), Irish (Catholic or not) or Dutch or Native American or a Mexican national -- or my next-door neighbor, or her Swiss exchange student.

It would still be murder. It would still be wrong. There would still be no excuse, in my eyes, despite what that Yemeni editorial claims, either for the killing of a 37-year-old mother of four who sought a divorce, or the murders of two teenagers who wished to date non-Islamic boys.

Here's the thing: no matter how you're murdered -- shooting, beheading, slugged with a blunt object, poisoned -- statistically you're far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by a total stranger UNLESS you have a high-risk aspect in your life (cop, cash courier, schoolteacher -- though that blip may be resolving if the downturn in school shootings holds -- bank guard, etc).

So far as police have been able to determine, about 14% of murders occur between strangers in the US.

DOJ keeps some stats on violent crime in the US which appear to indicate that women are more likely to be victims of crime perpetrated by someone they know or are related to than are men even though men are more likely to experience violent crime than are women overall.

More crime numbers here suggest DOJ's reporting is more complete in some categories than others. If you don't mind PDF bombardment, there are graphic representations of information here by Albany.

None of which changes the tragedy that is murder -- and none of which absolves the murderer of the crime.

Whose analysis would you prefer to Chesler?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...that if you had started with this post, I might not have objected. "White" was a poor use of terms here---what I meant to say was the "majority racial and cultural collectivity as opposed to immigrants and cultural minorities who tend to be of swarthier skin and less well-integrated into the majority cultural/social/economic fabric". But that's a mouthful, isn't it?

The problem with Chesler is that she's a feminist-turned-neocon and she likes to use Islam and the problems in the treatment of women in Muslim countries as an alibi for a bellicose stand against said countries. For the plight of women in Muslim countries, the best guide is groups rooted in those countries like RAWA.

And that is my point, and it was my point from chezmadame's post and my commentary on Violet's post. Western feminists do not stand on neutral ground, or some special ground that only carries women's rights with it, regardless of what some would believe. Consequently, their actions and words (regarding minority women and women in other countries) must be well-considered. A Muslim man killing his wife here is just like non-Muslim man killing his wife here---so far as I have seen, it has appeared to take the overt form of any such murder here. So what purpose does it serve to specifically point out details of sharia or honour killing or whatever? Except to serve the purposes, knowingly or unknowingly, that Chesler currently serves...

Does that make any sense to you now?

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

And if I'd known everything you've made me go check out over the course of the last two days, in this argument, I'd've been able to start with this post. But I wasn't 'cause I didn't.
And I have you to thank for the progress. Does that make any sense to you?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Glad to know we might now be kind of roughly on a similar book chapter if not page. :)

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

This is yet another reason why the original post on this was done so wrongly. , and I'm quite surprised that the powers-that-be, here, are so reluctant to say anything about how this issue has been handled, here.

Oh, and here is Sarah, again, using the very title of her post to pick a fight with another board member. This is getting so damned old, already. I really do hope the in-your-face, overly confrontational, and overly aggressive posting is a ruse, because that can not be pleasant to deal with in RL, but more important, it turns you into a character and it totally distracts from your point. If that's how you like to deal, fine, but you can't seriously think that people are going to take your seriously, do you? It's damned near akin to posting in all caps.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

What a charmer you are. I had no idea that other people felt the same way. I'm happy for you that you can hide behind your Senior Fellowship.

Y'know, if you had just, like, posted about this woman's murder, I'd probably have felt content to have said my peace in the previous thread. This is a classic autoderailment, calling me out repeatedly, and then blaming me for hijacking.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

and at one point we were damn near in agreement -- this woman was murdered.

Nothing charming about that fact, less about the way she was slain. Nor, as I documented earlier in this thread, is she the only woman killed over some connection with marriage and / or honor.

Those teen girls in Lewisville were murdered over a year ago, and neither Lewisville's cops, the Denton County sheriff's office, the Texas Department of Public Safety, nor the FB&I have found the Egyptian cabdriver, their father, who disappeared right around the time they were found dead in his cab. The Fort Worth paper has a copyrighted story about the June renewal of the $10,000 reward in the case.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I know that you can't help it, but please do try. I almost gave up on this place, because both you and VL were getting away with a disgustingly large amount of truthiness and making unsubstantiated claims, while another 'lesser' member was banned for calling you guys for what you were.

You don't think I forgot the gems about the claim that the left sees Hamas as a "cuddly mascot" and the other straight-out unsubstantiated, unlinked comments made during the I/P shitfest, do you? I chose to stay, because as I left Lambert know, I'm going to make him tougher by having to ban me.

This went far beyond your pretty, little online persona; this goes straight to the top of the ladder. You were just one of the two main catalysts. For that, you can take a courtesy, and I know you will because you're a sucker for attention, whether it be positive or negative. In fact, especially when you're the center of negative attention. Well, just so you know, I don't mind feeding you. In fact, I'm going to feed you so much you'll wish I'd never started, ok?

Don't worry, sweetie; I haven't forgotten about you. You're simply not my current priority, though. There really is nothing to be afraid of from little ole me, unless you feel guilty. So, I'm not sure why you think I was trying to scare you.

Here's the beauty of this post and your way of thinking: A woman is brutally beheaded by her husband, but somehow when constructing this post your mind goes to "how can I also use this to stick it to a fellow blogger? Yeah, that won't distract from the issue, at all." Really? You're a piece of work; a badly constructed piece of work, as are the others that have mishandled this issue with distracting headlines, at best.

You all keep up the good fight against blacks, and muslims, and men, ok? You know, you all do quack and walk likes ducks, sometimes, unfortunately. It's time to give credit where credit is due. lol

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

"I don't mind feeding you. In fact, I'm going to feed you so much you'll wish I'd never started, ok?"

"You have nothing to be afraid of unless..."

That's some pretty weird stuff to be spewing in a comment to a post about the murder of a woman.

Hey Sarah, at least he's not accusing you of using an unproven meme that shouldn't be employed even if it's a proven talking point.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Well done.

When a woman doesn't agree, doesn't accept, doesn't back off, doesn't bow down, doesn't buckle under, she must be threatened with retribution and punishment. In a post dealing with the brutalization of women. [Paging Dr. Freud, Dr. Freud: Cleanup on aisle five!]

How charming. How enlightened. How progressive. Not. Not any of it.

Punk is the word; someone who huffs and puffs and postures and makes threats without the strength to carry them through. Most bullys at least have the strength to carry through their threats. This is just the behavior of a punk.

And then there's the glorious cause of avenging myiq[not]2xu, who received a well-deserved ban for - well, never mind why, doesn't matter - and has been filling another blog with his incessant whinings about how put-upon he is for months since. So Damon and a horde of little syncophants showed up here intending to hijack the entire blog and drive out myiq[not]2xu's critics. Punks, the lot of them, but ambitious punks with an inordinately high opinion of themselves.

One by one they've nearly all either drifted away or also been banned, their ambition far exceeding their capabilities. It is a peculiarly cruel curse of the inept that they cannot apprehend their own ineptitude. Karma, to be sure, but still; let us pause a moment and show some pity for them, poor wretched things.

There, that's long enough.

So, Damon. Talkin' tough seems to be your style. Doing tough stuff, like forming coherent arguments, constructing a consistent line of reasoning, supporting your claims with evidence or logic, passing your ESL class (take a "courtesy"?) not so much. Way out West here, we say of your sort: Big Hat, No Cattle.

Here's a dose of reality. Your glorious plan to invade Corrente and drive out those who didn't crawl on their bellies to worship the opinions of myiq[not]2xu is in shambles. Everyone you targeted is still here, and still thriving. Your compatriots have abandoned you. And all you have to offer are the same empty accusations and vapid threats you've been throwing out for months. Face it, Damon; you have failed - massively.

Stay, leave, continue to act like an idiot until you do get banned and then run off with your buddies to play the martyr, whatever; nobody cares. But don't think you can threaten Sarah, or any woman, without the gentlemen in the vicinity - and every feminist worthy of the term - stepping up and cleaning your clock.

So go ahead; take your best shot.

But before you do, you've got to ask yourself one question:

"Do I feel lucky?"

Well, do ya, punk?

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I don't need luck; I do not believe in it.

Sarah does gets my responses to her because she is a woman (a lady, she is not), but because she's, as you've put it, a punk. You should really know this given that I find you just as much a punk, and I've let you know that. You two are the biggest unnecessary disruptions, here, but at least you seem to know that; she, apparently, doesn't.

As for this myiq character you keep bringing up, I am not him or her; I am not a follower or him or her, so you can leave that much at the door, next time.

BTW, funny you bring up all hat and no cattle. It's exactly something I've said to Sarah, before. She loves to pick fights, she just doesn't seem capable of finishing them. Don't write a check that your asses can't cash, fool.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

You, of all people, here, are to talk, PUMA.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The line should have read: "Sarah doesn't get my responses". It's the only way the rest of the sentence makes since.

Oh, and I forgot, BIO, I will not take the lecture of someone who throws around the word "nigger" so flippantly, very seriously. If I had any respect of you before that incident, I definitely don't have any for you, now. On your very best day you are insensitive to and on these issues, so the authority at which you speak on issue of racism or sexism is non-existent. You do much better when you're blowing Barack.

Sarah wants to punch people and the noses, but she doesn't seem to ever want the consequence of doing that. Too bad.

Submitted by lambert on

Damon, you write:

Someone who throws around the word "nigger" so flippantly, very seriously.

Now, I remember very well CD's saying that "we're all niggers now." That's the very reverse of flippant.

So, got a link to whatever you might mean by flippant?

NOTE To Bio chezmadame: That's the only critical issue here.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I'll try and restrain myself.

Anything remotely substantive to that charge, I'd be happy to discuss.

Submitted by lambert on

"I'm going to make him tougher by having to ban me."

You've considered joining the circus, then? As a contortionist? In the logic department? It sounds like there's some kind of mindfucking project going on that's way too complex for my simple brain; so it should hardly surprise anyone that matters are not working out as planned. No doubt that has caused resentment and agita.

Darwin rulez:

One by one they've nearly all either drifted away or also been banned, their ambition far exceeding their capabilities.

So, bio, Damon's a myiq mole? Interesting theory, if true. Evidence? I mean, he's one of the guy's that I turn off from when the ranting gets loud, so I may have missed something important.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Yes, learning experience, and props to you and Mandos for sticking with it and sorting things through.

Very gratifying.

Gives me hope.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Lambert, I am not myiq. I was not talking about myiq, I was talking about Amberglow. Who, BTW, is myiq, and when was her or she banned that some seem to think that I am this blogger?

I don't mind to be called out of what I say or what I do, but I do mind someone claiming that I'm a former banned troll, and I do hope you would put an end to this permanently. This has got to stop. This is yet another example of certain people being able to get away with calling other's liars.

Submitted by lambert on

I just skimmed the thread, and you got called a lot of things (it happens, eh?) but I don't (1) see "liar" as one of them. In any case, that (2) would be OK if you were, in fact, lying.

Let's start with (1). Link?

NOTE No fair anybody calling Damon a liar now; this thread is hellacious enough.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I am being misrepresented as someone I'm not. I'm said to be someone else that I'm not, meaning that I'm being called dishonest and disingenous. It is being implied that I'm lying about my identity. You could easily put this to rest by looking at my IP address.

Submitted by lambert on

I could -- but in general, I don't. And that's why I asked a plain question, to which there was no answer. See?

Now, for my question to you. I just read your comment, and I don't see a URL in it. Where's the link I asked for?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

He's brought up the banning of myiq[not]2xu - that should be with caps, The Banning Of Myiq[not]2xu - any number of times and always calls it unfair. Anyone who puts up with my grief can't be accused of being too quick on the banning trigger, so that's obviously a crock, yet he persists. It is a cause, an obsession; he isn't so much a mole as a wanna-be avenger, a pretend knight prancing about in shining tin-foil armor astride a mighty imaginary warhorse, seeking dragons to slay.

But there I go again, being all psychoanalytical. No need to go into what those long sword and muscular steed fantasy images are all about, and don't even ask about that lance.

Evidence, well, yes, I believe your memory will do even if you have been skimming. Make a mental list of those who disagreed with the assertions of myiq[not]2xu when he was here. Make another list of the people who Damon has gone after, who he's called out as needing to be banned or disciplined in some way, who he says have exhibited behavior "worse" than his wounded alligare. The names are the same.

His fundamental mistake was (not to sound like a suckup) thinking he could outsmart you. He has tried to get you to engage in ways that are contrary to your nature, thinking he was clever enough to, as it were, show you the error of your ways.

Secondarily he's sought to punish the impudent, vastly under-estimating the strength of character of those involved.

He has failed to convince you to retract your ban, and your perfectly reasonable and practicable conditions for readmission are called insufficient - because from his viewpoint, and that of myiq[not]2xu, only your admission of error will right the perceived wrong.

As well, he has failed to get you to ban or discipline any of those on his and myiq[not]2xu's enemies list, and no one ran away after his feeble attempts at intimidation.

Failure everywhere.

The attempt to "make" you ban him, so he can join myiq[not]2xu in martyrdom, is playing out as yet another box canyon for him. He's set up another construct not based on reality and now keeps repeating himself, recycling calls for discipline, issuing warnings of coming retribution, threatening to leave and simultaneously daring you to ban him, stuck like a needle in a scratched record, because he can't quite figure out what the next move might be.

That is because there isn't one, short of breaking the blog's few rules or leaving. Neither of them will get him consolation cred as any sort of martyr and you won't ban him just for incoherency so there he sits, spinning in circles and spewing like Linda Blair's head.

A boggle, as it were, and I'm betting not the first one he's experienced. These behaviors tend to repeat. No end in sight, I'm afraid.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

This thread was supposed to be about the brutal murder of a woman seeking a divorce from her husband?

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

So if I ask "project much?", it should be squared?

"It is a cause, an obsession; he isn't so much a mole as a wanna-be avenger, a pretend knight prancing about in shining tin-foil armor astride a mighty imaginary warhorse, seeking dragons to slay.

But there I go again, being all psychoanalytical. No need to go into what those long sword and muscular steed fantasy images are all about, and don't even ask about that lance."

If "no need", why do? Eh?

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

in the way of my ancestors.

Start a flame war, get burned. Keep it up, get charred.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I hate to keep belaboring the point, but to think Sarah created this even mostly for the brutally murdered woman is a wish. This thread, again, was created specifically to stick it to Mandos. There was already a thread on this. The title of this thread is in direct response to Mandos' posts in that thread. There are maybe one or two other people that created different posts on the same issue, not to highlight something that the other blogger missed, but simply out of spite to the blogger or a responder in the thread. Sarah could have simply replied in that thread, but, instead, went out of her way to attack Mandos. She's done this before with others. Again, she seeks to punch people in the noses, but doesn't ever seem to expect the consquences. How in the world did she expect a thread on an already discussed current even where her only thought was to stick it to Mandos' concerns to stay on topic?

She went looking for a fight; she found it and then some, huh?

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Maybe you didn't read any of my other comments in both threads? Now you are sticking it back - and after both Mandos and Sarah have moved on.

I'm going to bed (after some RL).

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

And, I read most of your stuff, because your relatively consistent and level-headed. You're worthy of a great deal of respect, here, for that. You've built up a measurable amount of good will that you are easily able to cash. How is "moving on" creating a thread to solely to stick it to someone? I didn't start the fire, nor can I be the one to put it out. That's up to the either senior fellows or the arson's that are beginning to crowd this blog.

I'm sorry that you're unwilling or unable to call the initiator of this thread what they really are, but please do not feign bewilderment concerning how the very starting of this particular thread wasn't a direct spoiling for a fight. That's just being phoney. The same goes for asking "why" of BIO concerning his continuation in this. Perhaps, you simply like to stand to the side of things, but you it's because you like to that you know why we do what we do. In other words, you can't feign bewilderment of those that are more willing to jump into things, because you've always had a choice between standing aside or jumping in, and know both choices, and have chosen where you want to stand accordingly.

You can fault our way of how we deal with each other, but you can not feign ignorance concerning why we deal that way. That's all.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The complaint about unfair banning showed up well before amberglow's departure.

To be clear, and how I wasn't is unfathomable, I don't suppose Damon is anyone other than Damon. Never suggested it; thought never crossed my mind. How perfectly ridiculous.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

The complaint about unfair banning showed up well before amberglow's departure.

Got any links for that claim? You're making an awful lot of claims against me. It's time you've backed them up. If I did speak out against anyone elses banning, I can't remember.

Seriously, how many times has it been, now, that you've insinuated that I'm some kind of plant in cahoots with this banned blogger, now? Links, buddy; links. No one else would be allowed to do this.

Submitted by hipparchia on

i'm all about imposing my very western brand of feminisn on all the males living here in america, and i'd like to impose it on the males worldwide, but vigilantism scares me, especially since a number of my friends belong to various scary 'classes' -- wrong color, wrong country of origin, wrong religion, wrong sexual preferences, wrong ...

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

It is fair to have a sense of justice, and to want it for all peoples in the world. It is not fair to do so carelessly.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

and my even more radical very western view:

human beings, period. So...what happens to this guy, who killed his wife?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Should be charged, tried, and if guilty, jailed for a length of time commensurate to a brutal murder.

In The Future, we will come up with something even better than jail, but for now, that is what we expect to do and should.

Submitted by hipparchia on

the normal course of justice first.

and we do have to keep working on all avenues of fighting all violence against women. i'm glad to see the muslim community is getting out the message on domestic violence.

if it in fact turns out to be a religiously motivated honor killing, then we raise the hue and cry about that too. meanwhile, like the imam says: The main concern of the Muslim community is that whenever a Muslim does something wrong, Islam goes on trial.”

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Regarding the "main concern of the Muslim community is that whenever a Muslim does something wrong, Islam goes on trial". I agree that is Mandos's main concern (at least the main concern he expresses above all else), but, if you read the Imam's message in the first link, he doesn't ever mention that main concern. Rightly. In fact, he puts the onus on the community to decry the mindset that allowed it to happen WITHIN the Muslim community and to help women within the Muslim community. RIGHTLY.

Having said that, I find this thread a deliberate trainwreck, designed by Sarah for that purpose, and have little interest in commenting further here since it is designed to develop heat, not light. Mandos deliberately wrecked the previous one by convoluting the post with one on another blog (Violet's) and making it "all about the Islam-haters".

Well done, folks!

Would it be possible to fashion a post on this topic which doesn't feed on the charges/false charges of racism, sexism, anti-islamism or callousness toward misogyny and murder? This has been a pretty toxic brew to this point.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

that I objected to, it was the unfair way you framed this topic in the original post, including specifically baiting Mandos. If you set bait, what do you think happens? Not that I was impressed by his earlier comments either (in case you hadn't taken that away when reading MY comment).

Your latest had none of the original frame, it was pretty damn fair. If you had started with that comment as your post, I doubt you would have gotten the negative reaction you did.

But either comment or do not, according to your wishes.